Re: shapes as classes

No, that is correct. The short bit in my email would not have been complete.

kc

On 12/29/14 12:11 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> So http://kcoyle.net/temp/edmtest.ttl is not correct?  That graph is
> connected.
>
> If http://kcoyle.net/temp/edmtest.ttl is not correct, then what is the
> correct setup?
>
> peter
>
>
> On 12/29/2014 11:05 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/29/14 7:56 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>> As far as I can see this is a connected example because of the
>>> edm:aggregatedCHO property.
>>
>> I thought so too, until I saw Eric's dot diagram, which showed that
>> they are
>> actually held together by a property from the ORE ontology [1] called
>> "ore:proxy", which I didn't include in this example. I was fooled by
>> the fact
>> that the IRIs all end in the same string
>> ("BibliographicResource_2000092034263"), but that the differences
>> between them
>> is earlier on in the path:
>>
>> http://data.europeana.eu/item...
>> http://data.europeana.eu/aggregation...
>>
>> That ORE relies heavily on naming metadata graphs as "proxies" is
>> interesting
>> in light of the discussion of "what is a thing in RDF?" The library and
>> archive world has been very clear that their metadata is a proxy or
>> surrogate
>> for a much richer Real World Object, and has kept that Real World at
>> arm's
>> length. Even the representation of persons as creators has stopped far
>> short
>> of the real world: the person graph (or record, as it currently is)
>> represents
>> only the *chosen name* that will stand for the person in the data, and
>> not the
>> person him/her self. There is no biographical information included
>> (dates of
>> birth only exist to differentiate two persons of the same name, and other
>> information can be used in place of the date). The person is not a
>> "Resource"
>> in library data.
>>
>> All this to say that in spite of having a rich tradition of metadata
>> in this
>> community, that tradition is a great distance from the approach that
>> comes
>> from the AI activities that attempt to replicate real world activities.
>>
>> kc
>> [1] http://www.openarchives.org/ore/1.0/datamodel - and which makes
>> very heavy
>> use of the term Resource, as "any item of interest", from the Web
>> architecture
>> document (http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/)
>>
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/20/2014 09:05 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>> This isn't my data, so what you're getting here is my understanding of
>>>> the
>>>> model and the rules. The rule that needs to be applied is that for
>>>> every
>>>> "record" there must be one edm:ProvidedCHO (by rdf:Type) and at
>>>> least one
>>>> ore:Aggregation (by rdf:Type). It looks to me like these are the
>>>> relevant "bits":
>>>>
>>>> <http://data.europeana.eu/item/9200231/BibliographicResource_2000092034263>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      a edm:ProvidedCHO .
>>>>
>>>> <http://data.europeana.eu/aggregation/europeana/9200231/BibliographicResource_2000092034263>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      edm:aggregatedCHO
>>>> <http://data.europeana.eu/item/9200231/BibliographicResource_2000092034263>
>>>>
>>>> ;
>>>>      a ore:Aggregation .
>>>>
>>>> In the RDF/XML this reads as:
>>>>
>>>>   <edm:ProvidedCHO
>>>> rdf:about="http://data.europeana.eu/item/9200231/BibliographicResource_2000092034263"/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>    <ore:Aggregation xmlns:ore="http://www.openarchives.org/ore/terms/"
>>>> rdf:about="http://data.europeana.eu/aggregation/provider/9200231/BibliographicResource_2000092034263">
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    </ore:Aggregation>
>>>>
>>>> As I said below, EDM uses RDF/XML, and there is the concept of a
>>>> "record" in
>>>> the sense of a beginning and end and that "record" has an identifier
>>>> (here
>>>> ending in "263"). Other than sharing that URI, the ProvidedCHO and
>>>> Aggregation
>>>> have no direct links to each other that I can find. To me, this makes
>>>> a graph,
>>>> and I don't know if this is what is meant below by: "in the same
>>>> information
>>>> resource".
>>>>
>>>> kc
>>>>
>>>> On 12/20/14 8:36 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>> Without knowing what sort of thing you want to do with this, it is
>>>>> impossible to determine whether you are depending on an implicit
>>>>> connection.
>>>>>
>>>>> peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/2014 08:22 AM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/19/14 8:11 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>> The narrative for S35 says "There is no path from the
>>>>>>> acc:AccessContextList node to either of the acc:AccessContext nodes.
>>>>>>> There is an implicit containment relation of acc:AccessContext
>>>>>>> nodes in
>>>>>>> the acc:AccessContextList by virtue of these nodes being in the same
>>>>>>> information resource."  This implicit connection is not part of RDF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An example would really help here. I have what may be a similar
>>>>>> example from
>>>>>> the Europeana data. I'm not sure if this mailing list takes
>>>>>> attachments, so
>>>>>> the (short) example is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://kcoyle.net/temp/edmtest.ttl
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cut the data down from something with dozens of related files and
>>>>>> subject
>>>>>> headings, but I think I kept the structure intact. The main nodes of
>>>>>> the model
>>>>>> are edm:ProvidedCHO and ore:Aggregation. The data is natively in
>>>>>> RDF/XML but I
>>>>>> have trouble reading that so I converted it to TTL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Q: Is this an example of what is being discussed here?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> peter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/19/2014 06:01 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>>>>>>>> DC has at least one similar case, in use today. Can you,
>>>>>>>> however, say
>>>>>>>> what you
>>>>>>>> mean by "some characteristic of two nodes"? What "characteristics"
>>>>>>>> would put
>>>>>>>> them out of scope?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> kc
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/19/14 4:12 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If the only connection is that they are in the same graph, then it
>>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>>> be in scope.  However, if there is some indication that the
>>>>>>>>> connection
>>>>>>>>> is somehow special because of the some characteristic of two nodes
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> are both in a particular graph, then I would say that this is
>>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>>> scope.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It appears to me that the latter is the case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> peter
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/19/2014 12:42 PM, Arthur Ryman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote on
>>>>>>>>>> 12/19/2014
>>>>>>>>>> 02:40:44 PM:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> To: Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: 12/19/2014 02:41 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: shapes as classes
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> S35 talks about an implicit connection between
>>>>>>>>>>> acc:AcccessContext
>>>>>>>>>>> nodes
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> acc:AccessContextList nodes.  This implicit connection
>>>>>>>>>>> appears to
>>>>>>>>>>> me to
>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> outside the scope of RDF.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> peter
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>>>>>> I think this implicit connection is in scope because the concept
>>>>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>>>>> RDF
>>>>>>>>>> graph is within the scope of RDF. The implicit connection
>>>>>>>>>> between the
>>>>>>>>>> nodes is a consequence of them being in the same RDF graph. A
>>>>>>>>>> shape
>>>>>>>>>> language should let me describe a constraint such as "The graph
>>>>>>>>>> must
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> exactly one node of type acc:AccessContextList, and zero or
>>>>>>>>>> nodes of
>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>> acc:AccessContext."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- Arthur
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet/+1-510-984-3600

Received on Monday, 29 December 2014 20:23:22 UTC